“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Showing posts with label written-only notice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label written-only notice. Show all posts

Polite Enough to Be Ignored: When Calm Requests Precede Procedural Retaliation


⟡ “It’s Like They’re Angry I Brought My Children to the ER” ⟡
A Polite Appointment Request That Also Serves as a Micro-Complaint Against NHS Hostility

Filed: 22 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/NHS/EMAIL-04
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-22_SWANK_Email_Reid_KingAppointmentRequest_DisabilityDisclosure_NHSDismissal.pdf
Email to GP Dr. Philip Reid requesting an appointment for one child and noting NHS hostility toward emergency care requests. Quiet, careful, and legally relevant.

I. What Happened

On 22 November 2024, Polly Chromatic sent a measured request to Dr. Philip Reid regarding her son, King. She expressed flexibility with scheduling and confirmed she would continue to monitor his condition at home until seen.

But embedded in this simple note is a quiet alarm bell:

“It’s like the hospital staff are angry at me for even bringing my kids to the ER.”

The message, copied to social worker Kirsty Hornal and Bcc’d to a legal contact, also restated a disability-related boundary: written-only communication due to verbal impairment.

This is not a crisis email. It’s a record of calm concern delivered to an indifferent system.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Medical responsibility was proactively exercised by the parent

  • The request was reasonable, timely, and deferential

  • NHS staff had already displayed animosity for accessing care

  • Disability disclosure was restated for the record

  • The sender’s composure stands in contrast to any later claims of escalation or non-engagement

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is what parents are told to do: ask nicely, accommodate the system, and remain flexible.

And it still didn’t work.

SWANK logs this as a baseline evidentiary marker — one that neutralises future accusations of hostility or avoidance. It also forms part of the longer chain of written-only declarations that were ignored or dismissed.

This is the politeness that came before the rage.
And it was ignored, too.

IV. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t aggression.
It was responsible concern — treated like an inconvenience.

We do not accept that reasonable medical requests should be punished with suspicion.
We do not accept that written-only disability notices must be repeated endlessly to matter.
We will document every moment calmness was used against the vulnerable — and every record that was too soft to be taken seriously.

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡

Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.

To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach.
We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence.

This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.


No comments:

We Came Here to Breathe — But That Was the Problem: How Asthma Became a Social Offense


⟡ “It’s Like You’re All Angry at Us for Having Asthma” ⟡
A One-Sentence Social Diagnosis That Said More Than a Tribunal Ever Could

Filed: 23 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/EMAIL-09
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-23_SWANK_Email_Westminster_AsthmaStigma_DisabilityIsolationNote.pdf
Email acknowledging medical and social discrimination toward a family with chronic asthma. Written during a period of safeguarding surveillance and medical strain.

I. What Happened

In this one-paragraph message, Polly Chromatic communicated something that countless forms never ask and no institution admits:

“It’s like you are all angry at us for having asthma. That’s how we feel.”

The email was addressed to social workers, legal advisors, and the family GP. It referenced the family’s prior experience of social exclusion in Turks and Caicos, contrasted with their continued mistreatment in London — despite "help" being offered.

It closed, characteristically, with a polite thank you and a written-only disability declaration.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The emotional reality of chronic illness stigma across jurisdictions

  • Institutional hostility misdirected at the existence of a diagnosis

  • Social marginalisation reframed as policy concern

  • A legally consistent record of written-only contact preference

  • Asthma not just as medical condition — but as a trigger for systemic rejection

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because in surveillance culture, illness is tolerated — until it becomes inconvenient.

This is not a crisis email. It is a cultural register of how children and parents with asthma are not merely unsupported — they are framed as the problem itself.

SWANK logged it not for its length, but for its clarity.
Some statements are so quiet they become forensic.

IV. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t oversensitivity.
It was social diagnostics in the voice of lived data.

We do not accept that receiving “support” should require being silent about stigma.
We do not accept that asthma should make a family politically suspicious.
We will document every time someone said “thank you” while also saying, “you made us feel hated.”

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡

Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.

To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach.
We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence.

This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.


No comments:

Documented Obsessions